Varied Reactions to Ron Paul's Scaling Back His Presidential Campaign

From the national Libertarian Party executive director Shane Cory, an email call for Paul's supporters to support the LP. An excerpt:

Many of our own members, maybe even you, have been enthusiastic supporters of Dr. Paul's campaign over the past year. Many thousands have given their time, money and their passion to support the efforts of Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

The efforts of these thousands of supporters were noble, but in the end, Republicans rejected Dr. Paul's message of peace, prosperity and freedom.

……….

This leaves the Republican Party right where it started and where it has been for many, many years -- a party without principle. With its partner on the left, both parties continue to represent a compromising beast that continually thirsts for more power at the expense of our liberty, our property and our privacy.

In stark contrast, the Libertarian Party stands firm. Our values are unwavering. Our commitment is unstoppable.

…………

The Libertarian Party is the last remaining stronghold for liberty in American politics.

Unfortunately, the Ron Paul campaign has unintentionally taken a toll on our party. Many of our members have changed their voter registration to vote for Ron Paul in a primary while others have allowed their support to lapse as they gave all that they could for a candidate that represented their values.

Early on, I made the decision to not interfere or discourage this activity. I felt it was wrong for me to place our party above such an incredible opportunity for liberty that existed with Dr. Paul's run for the White House.

But today, it's time to come home.

If you have switched your party registration, allowed your membership to lapse or have put off your decision to join the LP, I now ask that you reverse course and renew your support for our principled party.

In another reaction, a bevy of prominent Ron Paul campaign supporters make a public vow that the Revolution will continue, past the campaign. An excerpt:

We, the undersigned, having given proper and due consideration to the current situation of our country, do declare that it is our clear and determined Intention to continue the fight for Freedom and the restoration of our Constitutional Republic under any current or future circumstances. Our cause is not limited to or constrained by any electoral contest or result thereof….

Over at the National Ledger, however, Richard Mayhew thinks the whole Ron Paul deal was just a devilishly clever way to cripple the libertarian movement. Mayhew's conclusion:

If Ron Paul continues to string along his supporters until the Republican Convention in September, it will effectively dismantle the libertarian vote and the Libertarian Party. After September, the Libertarian Party will have no time to regroup as ballot access and filing deadlines would have long passed.

As a result, the Libertarian candidates that remain will make little impact on the 2008 elections, giving Republicans a fighting chance against their Democrat challengers.

The Ron Paul campaign may be known as own of the most successful political subversions of a large constituency in modern history. Some may call that "evil" but in the political strategy world, it was an amazing accomplishment.

My February reason cover story on the Ron Paul movement.

Comments

[Taktix?]

Over at the National Ledger, however, Richard Mayhew thinks the whole Ron Paul deal was just a devilishly clever way to cripple the libertarian movement.

How long before this becomes Donderoooooooo!'s new mantra?

[madmikefisk]

I don't see how it is a crippling of the libertarian movement. The Libertarian Party, perhaps... but not the movement. One man does not kill ideas (usually).

That aside, it sounds like Mayhew seems to disregard the damage to libertarian ideals that would be associated with, say, a President Obama.

[Kent]

Go Steve Kubby!!! Boo WAR.

[MindlessSonOfAYuppie]

"That aside, it sounds like Mayhew seems to disregard the damage to libertarian ideals that would be associated with, say, a President Obama."

madmikefisk,

Dude, what do you Libertarians have against hope? Are you guys against change? Obama is for both change and hope and people are inspired by his speeches where he yearns for change and hope. I hope we change our directions and what better way than with a President who has the audacity to hope for change. Obama would be much better than Hillary, although they are basically the same on policy, because Hillary does not hope for change. Obama is for change and she is against Obama so she obviously is against change and hope.

Change/Hope 2008
No need for specifics!!!

[NeonCat]

Only cranks like me vote for the LP. The teeming masses don't give a shit about freedom, they want to be protected from the Bad Men and get the things they're entitled to. Mayhew sounds like an idiot, thinking Ron Paul's candidacy does squat w.r.t. the election chances of the LP.

The only way this country will change from the pious platitudes of the Republicrat system is a massive, end-of-the-Soviet-Union type event. Until then we'll get slight variations on the buffet of shit that is the political process in this country, but nothing too radical, Constitution-loving or that wouldn't test well before a focus group.

[prija]

Ron Paul Doesn't Quit

A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last week. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up - with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.

Republicans do not want John McCain to be their nominee. He has only been able to become the front-runner because the field was so divided and because he's a media darling. We can see just how unpopular McCain is in the heartland by his performance in the Kansas caucuses today. Kansans resoundingly rejected the Arizona senator, and McCain's big wins so far have mostly been in blue states - states he won't win in November if, heaven forbid, he's the Republican nominee.

Republicans want and need an alternative. Some people think Mike Huckabee provides an alternative to McCain. But Huckabee, who now tries to sound like Ron Paul when he talks about abolishing the IRS, raised taxes in Arkansas and vastly expanded spending in that state when he was its governor. Huckabee is no alternative at all. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has never voted for a tax increase, never voted for an unbalanced budget or for an unconstitutional war or government program.

At stake here is not just the Republican nomination - which McCain still has not locked up - but the future of the Republican Party and, much more importantly, the future of our liberties. We have to organize in every single state, including the ones that have already voted in the primaries and caucuses, to continue the fight to take back the Republican Party and to ensure that Ron Paul's principles, the principles of Washington and Jefferson, prevail. For the sake of that cause, Ron Paul's campaign continues, all the way to the convention.

- Dan McCarthy, Internet Communications Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee

[Chris Potter]

In stark contrast, the Libertarian Party stands firm. Our values are unwavering. Our commitment is unstoppable.

...and our candidates are unelectable.

I'm not the only one taken aback by the rank hubris being displayed by the LP, am I? They've stood on the sidelines as the Paul campaign developed into a libertarian movement that people of many different political stripes could rally to...but now it's time to get back to the business of being ideologically pure and getting 0.5% of the vote.

As for Mayhew, you can't cripple the lame. The worst RP's candidacy could have done is cost the LP 0.5% of the vote, after all.

[Bill Moore]

Now that Ron Paul's out of the game Reason and Cato can go back to acting like they're at the forefront of libertarian ideals, supporting only failed attempts to gain any sort of political control while keeping the moral authority because they can say that they supported principles of freedom which the world will not allow.

Meanwhile, the next great potential to come around that might actually have a chance to make libertarian progress will be stunted by these two institutions that would rather sit back idly dreaming of a better day than actually seeing it come to fruition.

[Brandybuck]

Frankly, the Libertarian Party has been sitting on its collective ass for thirty years. The best thing the Ron Paul campaign has done is to wake them up.

A few years ago the Libertarian Reform Caucus argued that the LP's failures were due to its purity of principle. While I have some small sympathy for their argument in (the membership pledge essentially demands anarchism), the real problem is marketing, not ideology. The LP keeps losing because it is primarily an intellectual movement. Ron Paul is much more successful because he is selling small government and the Constitution. (Where Paul starts losing people is when he starts talking about the monetary economics).

[Nick]

If Gary Johnson ran as the LP candidate, would Ron Paul support him and let everyone know that he supports him? The current crop of LP potentials are not very good, but a good LP candidate could do well with a Ron Paul endorsement.

[ClubMedSux]

If Ron Paul continues to string along his supporters until the Republican Convention in September, it will effectively dismantle the libertarian vote...

I didn't know the libertarian vote was ever mantled in the first place.

[JL]

Here's my take: half of the country has already voted. It makes sense to scale back the staff. why are people pooping their pants about this?

[Sam Grove]

(Where Paul starts losing people is when he starts talking about the monetary economics).

He gets big cheers from the college set on this issue.

I think he loses people when he goes off the topic of smaller government; pro-life, immigration, and a lot of Republicans turn away when he talks about leaving Iraq.

[Orwig]

"Hope"... now there's a fool-proof plan we can all get behind. Go Obama!.
In other words, the neo-cons win. Good bye civil liberties. Good bye Constitution. Good bye bank account. And Hello Police State. Hello Socialism. Hello overwhelming Tax burden and continued corruption.
You FOOLS!

[Jacob]

Since when was the Libertarian Party a vital part of the libertarian movement? I mean, where would we be without that LP dog-catcher in Peoria, right?

[Brandybuck]

He gets big cheers from the college set on this issue.

The college set can't win elections. Ron Paul got won Stanford University with 46% of the vote, but only got 4% Santa Clara County where Stanford is located. What good does it do if he wins all the right-leaning college students (those 10% that aren't infatuated with Obama) but loses everyone else?

You have to stick to your principles, but that doesn't mean you have to run a didactic campaign. Many people may boo Ron Paul when he talks about Iraq, but they're aren't falling asleep. They don't doze off until he starts lecturing on economics.

[highnumber]

Now that Ron Paul's out of the game Reason and Cato can go back to acting like they're at the forefront of libertarian ideals, supporting only failed attempts to gain any sort of political control while keeping the moral authority because they can say that they supported principles of freedom which the world will not allow.

And that's different from RP supporters?

[ed]

There's every probability that the next president will expand the powers of the office and the reach of big government in ways that would make FDR's ghost cream his jeans. And all with the blessing of the electorate. Libertarian "movement"? Where?

[Shem]

madmikefisk-How would a President Obama damage libertarian ideals? Obama was never connected to them in the first place. He might have an effect on freedom, but it's not like anyone would say, once he's gone, "Obama proved that libertarianism doesn't work."

[shrike]

The Constitutional "right of privacy" is a Libertarian ideal that Ron Paul and the GOP oppose (and Obama supports).

Without that right other "rights" are a mirage.

[Bkuto]

"Varied Reactions to Ron Paul's Scaling Back His Presidential Campaign"?

Well, I am yawning less...

[Butler T. Reynolds]

Here in conservative Cobb County, GA where I live, Ron Paul got only 3% of the vote. The harsh reality is that for Republicans, it is all about Bombs and Baby Jesus.

How lovely.

[Lex]

Judging from the California primaries, not that many Libertarians re-registered as Republicans to support Ron Paul. LP registration was down from 0.55% to 0.53%.

Just over 11,000 Libertarians voted in the LP primary primary in California last week. Over 100,000 registered Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

[To Defy the Laws of Tradition]

The Ron Paul phenomenon was a good showing. But it's not the beginning, it's the end. The fear addicts and nanny staters win. Ron Paul LOVEolution wasn't a sign of the resurgence of liberty in the US anymore than the Chinese who assembled at Tienamen Square were a symbol of China's coming freedom revolution. This was liberty's last gasp, and, for whatever reasons, we squandered the opportunities presented. Here comes the state. Don't forget to genuflect for the uniforms.

[R C Dean]

The Constitutional "right of privacy" is a Libertarian ideal that Ron Paul and the GOP oppose (and Obama supports).

I think Ron Paul's position is a little more nuanced. Ron's a pretty consistent supporter of the enumerated powers concept, which means that the federal government has no power to intrude on your privacy except as necessary to carry out its enumerated powers (which don't include, for example, regulating abortion).

The limitation of the federal government to its enumerated powers doesn't limit state government. The Constitutional limitations on state governments are generally contained in the Bill or Rights and subsequent amendments, none of which seem to apply, for example, to the issue of abortion.

As to what Obama's position is, I have no earthly idea (outside the rather narrow issue of abortion, of course). I suspect Obama doesn't have much use for financial privacy, for example.

[Legate Damar]

I think that there are two primary components to Paul's support base: libertarians attempting to salvage the red team along with their liberties, and independents who won't vote blue team but were looking for someone (anyone) on the red team to stop running for Emperor. The LP, in its current "well, if that's what you think, then hand in your decoder ring" manifestation, is capable of capturing some of the first group, but little or none of the second.

[Brandybuck]

The Constitutional "right of privacy" is a Libertarian ideal that Ron Paul and the GOP oppose

Since when does Ron Paul oppose the right of privacy? Instead I see that he is opposed to the PATRIOT act, opposed to FISA, opposed to wiretapping and warrantless searches, etc, etc.

The GOP (and Democrats) as a whole may be hostile to privacy, but Ron Paul most certainly is not.

[Johncjackson3rd- VP Cosmotaria]

Ron Paul has written about his opposition to "privacy" as it applies to homosexual activity. What was that case? Lawrence v. Texas? Yeah, he wrote some nice little articles opposing that and making sure to work in some anti-gay, pro "marriage" pandering.

[Johncjackson3rd- VP Cosmotaria]

FWIW,
The Libertarian Party would have GLADLY nominated Ron Paul but he turned them down. SO how can you blame the LP, a POLITICAL party, for moving on? Yes, they will go on to get around 0.4% of the vote, but don't blame them for Ron Paul's lack of success or for not embracing him. MANY people involved in the LP, including elected officials personally and/or publicly supported Ron Paul and donated to his campaign.

Many RP supporters wanted a "third party run." He has said no. How the hell is the LP responsible for any of that. Neither hurt/helped the other, most likely.

[Chris Potter]

John Jackson,

Ron Paul supports the right to be free of unreasonable searches -- you know, the "right to privacy" that's actually in the Bill of Rights, rather than the ones that are selectively conjured up out of the 9th if they support the Left's pet issues.

[shrike]

Privacy, insofar as it is a "pet issue" of the left (aka, the origin of 'activist' judges), was introduced in Griswold v. Conneticut to protect the private use of contraception - which was at that time and SCOTUS case simply the use of the birth control pill.

That is what rankles me about the portion of the LP that wears Jackboots for Jesus. The notion of LIBERTY is restricted to their Biblical worldview. What OTHERS rationally decide for thmeself is personally important takes a backseat to the GOP's supernatural Flava-Flav of the month.

When the existing sliver of the LP electorate cannot agree on such a fundamental issue I say good riddance to this sham of a party. I won't back down on the issue of self-determination for a second.

The same Gawd-Freak Faux-LPers also chimed in on the Terry Schiavo case with their marching, howling wingnuttery. For them, two words - Fox News.

[highnumber]

Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.

Ron Paul's words

WTF?

[Gman]

What is the Libertarian party? What have they accomplished? Im pretty sure most people in America dont even know there is a libertarian party.
The Libertarians squable more over who to exclude then who to include. Its stupid, and they (the libertarians) are not gonna gain many supporters.

[Noodles]

The LP got 0.32% of the Presidential vote in 2004. 0.98% of the Congressional vote in 2006. Are they worried that the Ron Paul phenomenon might stop them from matching those mighty achievements?

[shrike]

So, according to the Rockwell link above, Ron Paul says that the state "has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex" - even in the sanctity of one's OWN HOME and in private!

Fuck him.

All the way to Hades.

[Corky St. Clair]

Come home to the GOP, Libertarians, and help us purge the neoconservatives and nanny staters from the party.

Please? We need you because, without you, our stool will not stand.

Don't be bastard people.

[tej?n]

Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.

This quote, and that entire article, is in reference to Federal judges overturning State legislation. Note that he calls sodomy laws ridiculous. He's railing against corruption of the processes of government laid out in the Constitution (hey, there's that theme again), and while he could have picked a less inflammatory example, he makes a point of agreeing that those laws shouldn't be there... however, they need to be removed by legislators, not judges.

[Chris Potter]

shrike,

According to the Constitution, the state does have that power. Whether exercising that power is consistent with a libertarian philosophy is another matter.

[shrike]

So an individual has no Constitutional protection against a renegade state assembly?

Lets assume that the Ninth and Fourteenth had not "fixed" this problem, is this any way for a Libertarian to meander around the real issue?

I just wish these moralist types pursued personal privacy rights with as much zeal as they pursue property rights.

Please forgive my rant, I live in Atlanta and was home from work today and had my fill of the "Libertarian" Neil Boortz scream about how much he enjoyed seeing Iraqis quiver under the US military boot....

[highnumber]

According to the Constitution, the state does have that power. Whether exercising that power is consistent with a libertarian philosophy is another matter.

IOW, Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

[R C Dean]

WTF?

What, did you skip right over my post?

[highnumber]

Note that he calls sodomy laws ridiculous.

Note that he actually does not call sodomy laws ridiculous. He uses the words "may be." It would have been quite easy to use the word "are," but he chose not to.

[R C Dean]

So an individual has no Constitutional protection against a renegade state assembly?

The individual has the protection provided by those Amendments that apply to the states via the incorporation doctrine.

The individual also has whatever protections are available in his state via the state constitution. You'd be surprised how much some of them say.

[highnumber]

R C Dean,

I don't agree that his position on enumerated rights is as nuanced as you think.

[NoStar]

I joined the Libertarian Party in 1972. I do not regret the 35 years I donated, worked, and voted for them. However, the time and opportunity has come to take control of the Republican party from the Nixonian Neo-Cons.

Previously finding other like-minded liberty loving people was a big obstacle. The internet and meetup groups have made this easy. Third parties try to do things back-asswards, attempting to get national exposure. If Libertarian and Constitution party members will join the Republican party at the county level, they can get control. Control the county parties and the state will follow. Control the individual state parties and the national party will be controlled as well.

At the aggregate meeting before we broke into precinct caucuses, motions were made for the party platform. This was my motion: "Republicans should once again stand for fiscal responsibility and stop spending like drunken sailors and Democrats." After the cheering, the motion passed with a 100% yes vote.

In my Precinct (I was the PCO) were sent 6 delegates, myself included, to the county convention. All are Ron Paul supporters.
After banging my head against a brick wall for all these years, this is going to be easy.

[shrike]

This is just right-wing slippery bullshit (concerning privacy and activist judges).

Much like A.G. Gonzales and his discovery that the guarantee of 'habeas corpus' was not in the Constitution --- or that the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in there.

The whole Originalist/Constructivist slant of interpretation hides a disdain for Liberty.

Just for those reasons alone, never mind the $3.1 trillion budget or this insufferable war-mongering, means that I will never again vote GOP.

[highnumber]

R C Dean,

My comment to you doesn't make any sense. Let me try again:

I am not a Constitutional lawyer or scholar, but it appears to me that Ron Paul has a limited view of what protection the Constitution gives the individual against the gov't. I find his opinion on Lawrence v Texas to be inconsistent.

[NH]

I have never read such bull wacky.
The LP is not going anywhere and should stop being so selfish to think he did this to derail them.

This is why no one takes the LP seriously.

[Joe Allen]

I am a proud, capital L Libertarian, but Dr. Paul has done far more to get the message out and to cause real change that the LP has ever done.

The LP is a victim of the two party system. The only way they will ever become relevant is if people like Dr. Paul open up the system from the inside.

Why is there no Democrat equivalent to Doc Paul? It would be great to have a debate on abortion and immigration from a libertarian perspective.

[Joe Allen]

"Now that Ron Paul's out of the game Reason and Cato can go back to acting like they're at the forefront of libertarian ideals, supporting only failed attempts to gain any sort of political control while keeping the moral authority because they can say that they supported principles of freedom which the world will not allow.

Meanwhile, the next great potential to come around that might actually have a chance to make libertarian progress will be stunted by these two institutions that would rather sit back idly dreaming of a better day than actually seeing it come to fruition."

Yes, and Reason/CATO mouthpieces can go on FauX NEWS to provide "balance."

[vic223]

The only candidate that has principles is Ron Paul. I switched to Republican so I can vote for him in the primaries. If the MSM and the Elections weren't so corrupt, Ron Paul would crush everyone else running!!

[Brian]

Earth to you Losertarians - start running as Republicans! There's no need for a separate LP party. If the GOP can welcome RINOs, Christians, and so-called "moderates" into their party, then they sure as sugar can welcome libertarians. Libertarians and conservatives are natural allies, let's join forces to defeat the Dems and then worry about the issues that divide us later.

[Chris Potter]

shike,

So, what variety of constitutional interpretation do you favor? If you have no problem with reading the Ninth Amendment as broadly as possible, you can't really complain about reading the Commerce Clause just as broadly, can you?

Also, don't paint strict constructionists with Torquemada Gonzales' broad brush. Strict constructionists recognize that the text prohibiting the denial of habeas corpus during peacetime obviously means that right exists.

[Chris Potter]

Note that he actually does not call sodomy laws ridiculous. He uses the words "may be." It would have been quite easy to use the word "are," but he chose not to.

So, you're going to hang RP over his choice of linking verbs? Whether the law is ridiculous or not is irrelevant to his point in the article, so it makes sense for him to avoid taking a stance either way while making his point.

If I said, "Nazis may be disgusting fascists, but they have the right to free speech," would that imply that I thought Nazis aren't disgusting fascists, because I said "may be" instead of "are"?

[snipitt]

Stop the government's interference with unrestrained predatory capitalism. There is nothing in our Constitution that says our food or drugs shouldn't kill our citizens. Let the free market decide what we can afford. La Cosa Nostra should be the model for free societies everywhere.

[highnumber]

If you said, "Nazis may be disgusting fascists, but they have the right to free speech," then someone said, "Note that he said Nazis are disgusting fascists," I would point out that, no, you did not say that they were disgusting fascists.

[shrike]

"shrike,

So, what variety of constitutional interpretation do you favor? If you have no problem with reading the Ninth Amendment as broadly as possible, you can't really complain about reading the Commerce Clause just as broadly, can you?"

(not sure how to use the quote feature)

I accept case law. 'Roe v. Wade' is settled as is Griswold.

Interestingly, during the recent dust-up on eminent domain I was curious since I, like many, was horrified at the prospect.

After reading the "takings" clause I changed my mind. It could not be more straightforward. Property can be legitimately taken. The SCOTUS got that right and the "liberal" justices read the Constitution from a LITERAL standpoint.

Read the clause - "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I don't like it - but there it is.

[Pablo Escobar]

The Libertarian Party has been an absolute failure. It has achieved nothing of significance since it was founded. Nor can it, given that the system is biased against 3rd parties. Until America gets proportional voting and ballot access for minor parties, it's not worth wasting time on the LP.

Working within the Republican Liberty Caucus is a far more effective means of change. If all the libertarians leave the party now that Ron Paul can't become the nominee, it makes it that much harder for future "Ron Paul Republicans" to succeed in elections. Stay in the GOP, and remind it that it once stood for individual liberty, low taxes and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

[Pablo Escobar]

Anyone who thinks Dr Paul isn't a libertarian should read this article by David Friedman:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-libertarianism-and.html

[highnumber]

Pablo,
Friedman presents a rather half-hearted argument. It boils down to, "he might be a libertarian," which I agree, he appears he might be, if you squint your eyes and tilt your head at the right angle.

[ETOPS777]

Who cares whether Ron Paul is or is not a "libertarian". When all of the candidates except one want to massively increase the size of government, you go with the one who does not. End of story.

[Leanne]

I'm not sure the Libertarians would want Paul supporters. They seemed pretty hostile when a few of them refered to themselves as Libertarian's. Several Libertarian boards didn't think Paul supporters were good enough or that Ron Paul was pure enough to wear the Libertarian mantle. Confusing, since they did ask him to run for the Party. I think there might be as many hurt feelings toward the Libertarian Party as there is toward the GOP.

[Joe S.]

We can't take back the GOP because we never had the GOP in the first place. Now that the primary results are in, we know that the GOP is 90 percent neocon, and that's after all those Ron Paul supporters registered Republican. I don't think we're going to seize control of the GOP any time soon.

[Brandybuck]

If we can't "take back" the GOP, can we at just take it over anyway? Their small government rhetoric may have been just rhetoric, but that's a heck of a lot morethan the other mainstream party has.

[memotheist]

be sure to add the "what's left of" prefix when you say "the Republican Party" or "the GOP"

"what's left of the GOP", instead of just "the GOP"

[The Downtown Talent Scout]

There's a new video message from Dr Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

He wants us to march on DC before the convention.

I'll be there...with bells on.

[Brett]

DON'T BE RIDICULOUS !!! Ron Paul wasn't rejected...he was censored by the media so that people going to vote had never seen or heard of his name before they glanced over it on the ballot.

A simply google trends searh will do OR better yet, take a look at the Project for Excellence in Journalism and you'll see that in the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, Ron Paul was hardly even a blip on the radar with 0.4% media coverage compared to the other candidates, some of which received as much as 29% of the coverage:

http://www.journalism.org/node/9436

[Ted L.]

If the Libertarian Party really wants to get more votes this time around, they should coordinate with the Ron Paul campaign as to which candidates he'd be willing to endorse. Based on statements he's made, he'd be willing to throw his support behind a 3rd party candidate after the Republican convention. If he can convince even a quarter of his supporters to vote for the Libertarian candidate, that would be a huge increase over their recent results.

On a personal note, I've voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the last three elections and I think they really dropped the ball in 2004. Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan were much better candidates than Badnarick in terms of getting the message across (which is really the only point realistically). In order to take advantage of the Ron Paul movement's success, they need to select a high profile candidate with a big personality and/or great speaking skills. I haven't taken a good look at the candidates yet, but I'm not optimistic based on the quick look I gave them.

[steven montross]

This blog sums up the LP problems nicely. Bickering and quibbling with little focus. You lost me about half way down the page.And the article sucked.

[Matt]

Mindlessyuppie Whats going on with you man how man times are you gonna here Obama say the word change and not realize he's not saying anything at all there is no substance to what he says it is an empty trigger word that he and all the Dems just keep saying over and over and over and eventually all you can hear is "HMM change that sounds good yeah change right on change." Wake up ask this man some serious questions and I'm not talking about a tax credit for college kids for some peace corp work! which by the way is a hollow credit of 4,000 dollars. Let me ask you this. What is to stop these free enterprising colleges from raising their tuition by hmm lets say huh 4,000 dollars!! it's just political pillow talk no substance. Didn't mean to rant just aggravates me at the lack of voter knowledge and turn out in every election. "Excuse me Mrs. why did you vote for her." "because shes a woman." "Excuse me sir why did you vote for him." "Ughh because he is a veteran.","Because he says change alot," "Because he was a minister," "Because He has nice hair." Ok got it out of my system thanks .

[trans-mutant]

I really don't see that Ron Paul contradicts liberty and liberitarian principles. He has in fact managed to rally the biggest GROWING support for liberties in our recent history, so I have no beef!

Look, here's what we can do:

The revolution march is vital to taking over our government structure. We need a huge show of force in DC on the 21st. of june.

We can take over the government from the bottom up, just as effectively as from the top down. Realize that if the house and senate majorities are Ron Paul conservatives, which is to mean members who WE vote into office running on RPs platform, then we have areal voice like it's supposed to be. Abuses by a president would be a lot less likely and impeachment power would be a reality once again.

This revolution can take back our country by democratically rooting out fascism and replacing congress and senate with members who obey the constitution.

We need to stick together, march together and increase our numbers.